Tomorrow I’ll be in Durham, Mike Nifong faces a criminal contempt hearing before Judge Osmond Smith. (I’ll be live-blogging the event.) At issue, did he lie to the court on September 22, 2006?
Here’s Nifong on September 22, 2006:
Judge Smith: So his report [Meehan’s May 12 report] encompasses it all?
Mr. Nifong: His report encompasses ever -- because we didn’t -- they apparently think that everybody I speak to about, I talk about the facts of the case. And that’s just, that would be counterproductive. It did not happen here.
Judge Smith: So you represent there are no other statements from Dr. Meehan?
Mr. Nifong: No other statements. No other statements made to me.
Mr. Bannon: Just so I’m clear, Mr. Nifong is representing that the facts of the case weren’t discussed in those meetings.
Mr. Nifong: That is correct. The facts of the case, other than the fact that we were seeking a, the male fraction DNA.
Here was Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, in his deposition to the Bar, revealing that, in fact, Dr. Meehan had a detailed discussion of his findings with Mike Nifong as early as April 10, 2006—including, of course, the revelation of the multiple unidentified males:
Mr. Brocker: Did Dr. Meehan sit down and actually go through the printouts or the results themselves during this initial meeting?
Sgt. Gottlieb: Yeah, and I was completely lost. He was talking well above my head.
Mr. Brocker: But he did sit down with you all and go through, specifically, the documentation that he had up to that point, and tried to explain the results of it?
Sgt. Gottlieb: I believe so.
Gottlieb’s struggles to understand what Meehan told him doesn’t exactly speak well as to how the DPD evaluates evidence more generally.